'Spam King' Released From Prison, Now Lives In Seattle

dmmiller2k writes "Apparently, after 'nearly four years in prison, the man dubbed the 'Spam King' by federal prosecutors, is allowed back online.' I wonder if there's some variation of Megan's Law requiring him to register with the local police department and notify all his neighbors with computers?" I sure hope any potential employers google "Robert Soloway" and find "Spam king" high on the results list.

Comments

And notify all his neighbors with computers

[Anonymous Coward]

via email no doubt

Re:And notify all his neighbors with computers

[ackthpt]

via email no doubt

I'd prefer he find honest work .. the alternative is he returns to his past.

Do we believe in rehabilitation or vengeance?

How about a second chance?

[ecotax]

Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense, and denying someone internet access is a pretty harsh punishment these days. How about giving him a second chance?

Re:How about a second chance?

[jfengel]

Ya know, I really, really want to agree with you. Everything you say makes absolute sense.

And yet, spamming is such a massively and prolifically antisocial thing to do that it's hard to imagine anybody ever recovering from it. He couldn't possibly have been unaware of the fact that, had he accidentally taken a shiv to the ribs while in jail, there would have been widespread cheering. Perhaps guilt-ridden cheering, but cheering nonetheless. Clearly, he didn't care then, and I really don't see how four years in prison would make him care now.

At the very least, it seems as if there should be some sort of expedited process for prosecution should he return to spamming. Not to deny him due process, but just to place him on a high priority list for investigating. Call it "spammer profiling".

Re:How about a second chance?

[dadioflex]

Not that I have much sympathy for the man, but he did serve his sentence, sending spam isn't a sex offense, and denying someone internet access is a pretty harsh punishment these days. How about giving him a second chance?

I agree. To err is human, to forgive divine. Besides, if he's denied a legitimate job, what's he gonna do?

Who's being punished here?

[bobdotorg]

FTFA:

As part of his plea deal, probation officers will monitor every e-mail Soloway sends and every webpage he visits for the next three years.

Oh how I would torture them...

No, we do not need another Megan's Law

[MobyDisk]

In general, the libertarian-leaning Slashdot population is quick to criticize the Megan's laws. But now that it is about something important... SPAM! ... well, those principles all go out the window, huh?

Those laws:
- Do not work.
- Are likely unconstitutional.
- If the likelihood of recidivism is that high, the person should not be released anyway.

Re:Idiots

[SargentDU]

You have hit the nail on the head. Those who have been found guilty of sex crimes are particularly marred for life. I know a guy that was 18 with a 17 yo girlfriend, her Dad did not like the boy, and got him labeled a sex offender. He cannot get rid of the stigma and he is now in his late 40's.

Re:Nope, no information law

[spun]

It seems as though there are quite a few people here who do not think the punishment decided on by our legal system is enough, and wish this "spam king" would have to keep paying, and paying, and paying for his crimes. Now, I do not hold absolute trust in our current legal system, but the alternative is mob rule and vigilante justice, which is a thing no sane citizen would wish for.

Personally, I think the punishment is sort of light. But that does not entitle me to take action against the man. The law of the land does not boil down to "What I, personally, think is fair." If I felt strongly enough that this punishment was too light, I would write to my representatives to advocate for tougher cyber-crime laws. I would not go to this criminal's new home town with a gun, as some are (jokingly? who knows in today's political climate.) advocating.

Nor do I wish that this man never finds employment again. That would mean that my tax dollars would go to support him. I'd rather he finds some useful work, due to my own self-interest, and my feeling that, once you have paid your dues to society, you deserve a second chance.

This is coming from my civilized side. My vindictive side thinks the man should die in a fire, but I am trying REALLY HARD not to give in to my vindictive side. If I did that, we'd have a lot of dead motorists here in New Mexico (land of the worst drivers in the world) and I would be in jail myself.